Forum Replies Created

I’m a definite vaxxer. However it seems to me that the anti-vaxxers are only putting their own children or themselves at risk. If so, how are they different from over-eaters that cause themselves sickness and hospitalizations and early death, yet no one suggests sanctioning them? Why can we not leave people to make their own life decisions? Is this a communist state?

Yes, you can. However it will not work with a kosher number, and with some models you need to look carefully at the exact frequencies that the device supports vis a vis the carrier (pelephone, cellcom orange etc.) If its 3G and over, its probably OK.

the Goral HaGra is but a spin on an old, universally used custom, quoted in Birkei Yosef (on the side of the shulchan aruch) in Yoreh Deah kuf ayin tes (on the Shulchan Aruch) seif ches. Please look there for a most fascinating discussion. It is hard to believe that being a great person is a condition. Did Rav Aryeh Levine consider himself a great person?

I think there are a number of stories where the Chafetz Chaim spoke out and ridiculed specific individuals. One that sticks in my mind is at one of the Kneisa Gedola’s the Chafetz Chaim was making jokes at the expense of a certain public individual called Adam ________ (? – don’t recall the last name offhand. Anyone with the specifics?) and the crowd around him started murmuring “Here the Chafetz Chaim himself is telling Lashon Hara!?” He heard the murmurs and said over the above gemara to explain that not only was this permitted, it was his obligation.
Lgufo shel inyan, the wording of that gemra is that we publicize chanafim – those who put on a holy front, while wicked within, because of chillul Hashem. Regular reshaim are well known, and will not bring about a chillul Hashem if we leave them alone.

Friends, the issue is not internet nor technology. It having computers in a beis medrash. Rav Gershon Edelstein feels that computers do not belong in a beis medrash. That’s all there is to it. (Yes, you can have one at home)

there is a shita of the baal ha’ittur that tzitzis needs two holes. As you will recall, the gemarah tells us that kesher elyon is deoraysa, because otherwise the tzitzis is unattatched. According to the baal haittur there is a in-and-out even without a knot, which constitutes an attachment regarding shabbos. This is one of the reasons other rishonim argue with the baal haittur. As mentioned, chassidim generally follow this shita and litvaks do not.

Its not that expensive to publish – google around for people that will publish your sefer and have them do only the parts you cannot – i.e. edit yourself, have a friend proofread and so on. Don’t buy any packages, rather use the services you need. Think in under $5k terms.

iacisrmma; can you point out that rashi? I recall several pesukim that say “ad hayom” which probably only refer to the day the Torah was written. Such as the law that a fifth of all produce grown in Egypt goes to Paroh…ad hayom!

Chevra, the crux of the problem here – which you would know if you lived here – are the unceasing and usually powerful winds. The fire travels very quickly, and the terrain is dry from not having any rain on it (there was one small rain) in an entire year. Do the math…

My limited understanding is that entering a plea is not related to emes or sheker. It is a strategic move, no more, no less. The court is not a place where emes or sheker matter much, procedural rules are far more pertinent. The things one says in court are not meant to represent truth, and therefore its like playing poker – would one need to represent the truth there?

Would someone actually advise a person to say the truth and run a strong risk of being put behind bars for ten years instead of copping a plea and paying 10K?

Syag, you write: “lebidik yankel – I am able to accept those two points as being true simultaneously. I am not sure I agree with you that he harmed me, NOT Hashem. Maybe he ALSO harmed me, maybe he used his bechira to harm me, but Hashem would have protected me if it wasn’t good for me.”

That seems to be a contradiction; if it can be true that Hashem controls all yet also true that humans can ultimately determine another’s harm or good, then there is no need to add that Hashem would have protected you.

Let me put it in a silly way; there is a pair of glasses where each glass shows something else. From the view of glass one, your friend has caused you harm, entirely on his own. (And darn needs mechila!) From the glass two pane, we see that ain od milvado.

Syag, there is a tension between two rival points of thought here, as is often the case. One says all is from Hashem, the other says that so and so has caused you harm. Both are true, at one and the same time. I know that sounds impossible.

As a point of reference see the Ramban Devarim ch. 20 who lays out the contradiction quite elegantly, and assigns one approach to the kohen and the other to the police.

The gist of this all is that Yes, your friend needs forgiveness, for he has harmed you, not Hashem…

I think there is a very simple non-religious reason against gay marriage;

Many forms of partnership exists. Think of room-mates, business partners, therapist-patient bonds and so on. They are valid and real. But they are not marriage.

Marriage is a particular bond between two people. It can incorporate producing children and physical intimacy, or it may not. There are marriages that no longer sustain these, yet are valid marriages.

Some marriages have no love. Some are marriages based on a particular need or convenience. But if they incorporate certain basic features, they are marriage.

I propose that marriage has been defined as: a relationship that provides exclusivity – at least on the woman’s part – and carries responsibility for the man, if for supporting the wife, or some other financial arrangement.

It refers back to the ideal of a woman and man living together, supporting each other and fulfilling each other. Even if the marriage is proposed for a certain time – say the pair intends to marry only for a year, – the frame of reference remains the institution just mentioned.

And it refers to a man and a woman. Nothing other than that is meant by ‘marriage’. Other relationships are called friendship, love or devotion.

So in short, the argument against gay marriage is that its not marriage. The word just doesn’t mean that, because it never did.

I am no halachik decisor, and my opinion is just that. There is an old halachik issue about if (old-style) conservative gerus works. Rav Moshe Feinstein considered the conversion valid, others disagreed.

So we are down to a halachik question that is still open, to the best of my knowledge. Why run with one side of the issue when a simple five minute gerus will put an end to all speculation??

Perhaps assur and muttar depend on the perception that people have; something known to be dangerous is forbidden and something considered harmless is permitted. So if marijuana becomes acceptable it becomes muttar. No different than eating shmaltzy food or living in NYC, which may be subjectively dangerous yet not forbiden.

It would be a pure pain in the neck to have charedi women MPs: Women charedim have pretty similar goals to men ones. So there isn’t any specific representation needed here. However it would be truly awkward honoring them at events, for them to be in private political meetings with jewish leaders, for them to speak at rallies and so on. So its not useful and only complicates matters.

Non Israelis talking here, friends. Those were not chilonim (with the exception of Mr Lapid). They would be mortified to hear themselves described as chilonim. Many daaven three times a day (some with a minyan!) and strictly keep shabbos. They have a learning seder too.

I happened to see the original in the Tanchuma today – the idea is totally different: sukkos is the finish to Yom Kippur, for on Yom Kippur Hashem forgives us but we are not yet friends. That happens on Sukkos.

Then forgiveness is complete. Hashem says ‘Ok, its a new account from now on’

So its not discussing the sins of the interim, rather that Sukkos marks the end of the atonement cycle.

What of the interim sins? Could be that they count towards the new account. Its not the subject at all.

I understand that the Midrash Rabbah has it a bit differently, that we are too busy to sin. In that case the other ideas expressed here hold.

Or, to couch your question in other terms, is it like you have a p’tur that you choose not to use, (say its not suitable for a person of your stature to return such an object, yet you do so anyhow) where it seems likely there is a mitzvah, or is it that less than a pruta is worthless junk, and there would be no mitzvah.

Perhaps the sugya that suggests that a aveda that was a pruta at finding – even if it subsequently became worth less – is still required to be returned, would be a starting point.

As Halevi said so well, although no one is denied opportunity for sin should they so desire, the days between yom Kippur and Sukkos are often on a spiritual high, devoted to mitzvos. One starts to sin – serious sin (not lashon harah) – on Sukkos.

Rabbenu Bachya in Kad Hakemach (‘Simcha’) argues that it is usually good to not be b’simcha. In fact, simcha is only mentioned in the Torah in connection to serving Hashem.

Having said that, perhaps the saying can be understood in that sense: as depression leads to sin, it is righteous to always be in a positive frame of mind, so that one will be safe. I would need to see the source to determine if Rabbi Nachman meant more than that, namely that one should be dancing in the streets at all times.

I bring seforim along. Last year I read Rav Saadya Geon’s Emunos Vdeos on Tshuvah – it sounds like it would be heavy reading but No, it was fascinating. Its not much – he is very sparing of words, but thats the beauty – you read a thought, then turn it over in your mind as the Chazzan sings and everyone is happy.

Some other candidates are the Rambam on Tshuva, the Beis Hashem of the Mabit on tshuva and so on.

I saw a video today and Rav Elyashiv does cross his fingers (the famous video about the shaitels) and I heard from a talmid of Rav Shlomo Zalman Aurbach that he was accustomed to do so too. Is seems they felt the issue was only during tfilla.

This will make me unpopular for sure, but it seems to me that if the woman is unjustified in asking for a Get, then she is the aggressor and the husband is under no obligation whatsoever to grant her one.

The fact that she is completely determined and committed to ruin the marriage is worthless. She is inflicting harm and that can obligate no one.

If the kids get ruined thereby, it is she who has ruined them. Not him.

(I do fully understand that the husbands best interest is not to have his kids ruined, so he would grant the Get instead. I discuss only who is at fault.)

Again, marriage is no prison. If she cannot hack it, she is entitled to leave. But only if she must. If she wants a divorce because she thinks she can do better or for variety’s sake, she is doing wrong.

Sam2: I suggest that marriage is not a prison. It needs compatibility. Sometimes people make a mistake and marry the wrong person. They are justified in asking for a get, although it is likely they will be at a legal disadvantage, much as someone breaking a business partnership with an ogre may be justified morally but at a legal disadvantage.

However often one side just wants out. I sat in at a meeting with a psychologist where a marriage was under discussion and the therapist thought they needed to work things out. The wife said ‘No’ – she just wanted out. Is that justified??

After the two sides invested time, money and heart into getting married, I think there needs to be justification to break someone else’s (i.e. your spouse’s) marriage.

You write: “Forcing someone to remain in a marriage they don’t want to be in is straight-up evil, no matter what your reason.” Why would that be????

I appreciate the sentiments offered here. I agree that once secular divorce has been granted, it is pointless to withhold a get and it is the high-road to give one.

However it really is similar to the partner analogy: one partner is a bum and refuses to honor his commitment. The other partner perhaps realizes that it is what it is and will agree to take the high-road and agree to dissolve the partnership. But he is hardly OBLIGATED!

So too here. A man or woman wishes to dissolve their partnership, causing harm to the other. The fact that they are resolute in doing the wrong thing and asking for an unjustified divorce does not entitle them in any way. On the contrary, it makes them more wrong.

What ought one to do? Sometimes it may be proper to hold the woman to her obligation and demand that she continue the marriage. One case that might be is when she will cause harm to their children as well. At other times the mentchliche thing would be to concede the battle, even if she is in the wrong.

My experience is limited. However a woman wishing to dissolve a marriage – which presumably her husband invested time, money and heart in – needs to justify herself. On what grounds does she want out?

If she cannot justify divorcing, then he has every right to deny a get. She is trying to do an injustice, to harm another. No one has an innate right to a get.

However, he needs to be realistic. If its not gonna be, its not gonna be. Just or unjust, if she tunes out, there will be no marriage. Its over. So I think it would be right that he humor her and divorce her, because he anyhow has no hope for a marriage here.

(Perhaps I’m wrong but marriage seems analogous to partnering in a business. Would one partner tolerate the other to just walk out and destroy the business in the process???)

I have read that the Yekkishe tradition is to give two names, one Hebrew and the other secular. Sometimes they had two people to name after, and they would name after one the Hebrew name and the other the secular one. Otherwise they would try and get secular approximation of the Hebrew name. When the name was ‘Shlomo’, they would call the son Solomon, Salman or Zalman. So the name was written as Shlomo-Zalman, which was really Shlomo/Zalman – either-or. One Hebrew and one secular.

I seem to recall that the Chazon Ish was based on the shach that we eat only sheep goats and cows (- not the Rama). Of course, a Zebu might be a cow. A buffalo is a bit harder to consider a cow, probably. Its physical appearance is very different.

I don’t understand Rabbi Brody’s words exactly as you do. I think he is saying that positive energy and tfillah plus emunah can work things you cannot imagine. You would never believe how effective they are. To emphasize his point he said that people taking medication could do without it. OK.

But he is not saying that there aren’t people who need medicine. He is talking in general, heroic terms.